[soc.religion.christian] schism and communion

mls@dasys1.UUCP (Michael Siemon) (09/20/89)

I found it a bit odd when the moderator called the Roman church schismatic
in talk.religion.misc.  For somewhat the same reason I find it odd (though
less odd) for Rome to call the Orthodox schismatic.  In that case, at least,
the final 11th century split was the expression of a fissure that had been
growing since the third century.  But I have a sense that "schism" normally
implies that a party within an organization decides that it can NO LONGER
abide by the organizational rules it *has* been observing and so decamps to
form a counter (or at least different) organization.  It is at any rate clear
that the Protestants LEFT the Roman organization, whatever the the merits of
their decision and whatever the truth that they were simply returning to an
earlier model of polity.  And despite there being several distinct breaks
with Rome, and mutual suspicion, there has truly been some political unity
of Protestantism -- simply in self-defense against monolithic Rome, e.g.in
the secular arm of Charles V and Philip II.  But "schism most simply means
"split" and we are indeed split -- and we are all responsible for this.

There is a reason, I think, for the sad fact that the Body of Christ has
been torn by dissension since very near its birth.  It is a paradoxical
result of the common witness of all of us who name ourselves Christian --
we are WHO we are because we have been saved by the Truth which is Christ,
through the Spirit of Truth:

	"And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another
	Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth,
	whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor
	knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be
	in you."			-- John 14:16-17

The skeptical Pilate ("what is truth?") exemplifies those who know nothing.
If we know our own salvation, we know that Truth because it lives in us.
Knowing this Truth, and being human, we tie the truth to words and to our
understanding of the words.  And here we start to go astray, because we
confuse our salvation with the word-pictures in which we discuss it with
others, or through which we frame our prayers.  All of that is necessary
to us, being human; but it carries with it a danger -- if someone else is
framing their prayers or discussions *differently* it can look to us like
they are denying OUR salvation, denying OUR truth, because they *say* it
differently.

But what I know because of its life in me is like my knowledge of my heart
and its beating -- a "knowledge" that is quite unconcerned with the biology
involved.  A knowledge that may or may not be aided by the latest theories
of cardiac function.  The word "heresy" in pre-Christian Greek refered to
the differing schools of philosophic thought, and its introduction into our
religious affairs points to the root of the problem: we have erected some
"understanding" of salvation into an icon and subsequently nothing will be
admitted into consideration that does not match the icon.

I don't know any way to dispense with the icons and still obey the command
to love God with our whole mind -- the basic functioning of our mind is by
metaphor, by imaging.  But we *have* to stop confusing matters of style
(iconographic details in our pictures) with the reality we are picturing.
And since salvation is so dear to us (a pearl that we will sell all we have
to purchase!) we clutch desperately at it, and reject every statement that
doesn't compel our own assent, as if it came from the devil.  I see a lot
of that on the net -- passionate insistence that all Christians MUST see
things the same way, with an implied threat that unless everyone agrees
with the writer, somehow the truth the writer holds fast to may be a lie.
(Yes, this is a deliberate inversion of the standard charge, i.e. that the
writer's opponents are the ones holding a lie.  I'm saying the passion is
at least in part related to the writer's fear for his own truth.)

But if our truth is not a self-serving truth, if it is a truth that issues
in the fruits of life, then it meets the criteria we are given by our Lord.
In which case it is mostly irrelevant whether someone else agrees with us
or not.  Luckily, we are NOT judged by what others, self-named as Christian
or as anything else, agree with us about.  [There is a technical quibble
here, in that the power to bind and loose in such matters is very much a
part of Catholic self-definition; I ask my Catholic readers to stand above
that perspective -- artificial and difficult as it may seem -- and look at
the matter as it was "before" the establishment of a Church. -- mls]

When dealing with the "heretics", a great deal can be achieved simply by
laying aside anxiety about our own salvation, since the disagreements and
discussions in no way alter that.  Neither can you force someone else's
salvation by forcing your own doctrines down their throats.

This is somewhat long lead-in to comments on Mac Horton's article, and to
the issue of mutual communion of the various churches.  The issue troubled
me in talk.religion.misc, and it continues to, without my being able to
say exactly why.  I think the problem is that I *know* too little, I have
too much difficulty distinguishing what matters to God from what matters to
me:

    1.	Fringe Protestants still, as did many Protestants centuries ago,
	think "papist mummery" is a tool of the devil whose "function" is
	a deceitful seduction away from Christ (and hence, if that is not
	"admitted" there must be a conspiracy; I'd put in a smiley except
	that too many are deadly serious about this.)   Mac Horton may not
	have noticed intra-Protestant sniping, but I have; though it's true
	that it doesn't normally reach the Antichrist level of vituperation.

    2.	Some "low church" types regard high church liturgies as "dead"
	and "stereotyped" but not (except stylistically) wrong so much
	as high-falutin' -- they may be able to participate in "higher"
	ceremonies, but they do so by "taking" them as merely peculiar
	variants of their own.  That is, it is quite easy to read most
	Lutheran or Anglican or Roman communions as "memorial" services
	in the more Reformed manner (again, that requires putting aside
	as least temporarily, a Reformed sense that ceremonies _per se_
	are a sort of idolatry.)

    3.	High church Anglicans, at least those with a major Protestant back-
	ground (like me), may be able to participate in communion with the
	Reformed, or Baptist, or even further out cults (insert as many :-)
	as you want there) on THEIR terms, but not thereby considering it a
	communion on OUR terms.  But this is complex; I'm enough Protestant
	that I can regard ANY exchange of bread and wine in the name of Christ
	as SOME kind of memorial -- it's just that that doesn't quite count
	as "the" memorial our Lord commanded us to make (paraphrasing Cranmer).
	Or at least, I find myself with a "boundary" problem; some memorials
	"count" as a sacrament of communion, and some do not: they are perhaps
	"second order" sacraments -- a liturgy that represents a liturgy that
	represents a spritual reality.  My church has to be more precise about
	this boundary than I do; no one may legitimately preside at Episcopal
	Masses (or distribute the host) who is not licensed to do so, which
	is to say, a priest ordained in our church.  Presbyterians, Lutheran
	or Romans (or whomever) must be "re"ordained if they join us.  For
	me, as for most lay Episcopalians, there is no need to draw any
	such sharp boundary.  And our boundaries need not in themselves
	say anything about the "validity" of sacraments elsewhere (e.g.
	in Roman or Orthodox churches).  In the same sense as 2. above, I
	can, personally, "read" a Roman or Orthodox communion as valid on
	*my* terms.  But again, the matter is not symmetrical.

It's hard to know what Rome could do without thoroughly denying its past.
It is very hard for me to see what the Catholic priest could have done at
the ecumenical service Charley mentioned: unless he were saying a different
mass at the same time, or had brought with him reserved sacrament (which
might be illegitimate here, I'm not presuming one way or the other) he
can hardly be observing a Catholic sacrament of communion, and any other
participation amounts to a legitimation of Protestant sacrametary theology.
Protestants at least share the CONTROVERSY about what communion means, and
so can see each other as "parties" within a broader tradition -- whereas a
Catholic who shares Joe Buehler's "ratchet" theory of truth (once the Church
has Pronounced, further discussion is Wrong) is trapped by that theory --
there CANNOT be a legitimate sacrament in the "memorial" style.  [Or can
there? I think truly creative Catholic theology could get around this. --mls]

And I would think it likely to be offensive to Protestants if the priest
DID say a separate Mass, quite aside from practical problems of who is an
acceptable communicant to Rome.  Again, as Charley mentioned, the Episcopal
position is that any baptized Christian may receive, and that is self-
monitored in practice, but this is a "latitudinarian" position of a church
that deliberately attempts to encompass a range of doctrine.
 
Anglicans have enough feet (at least the three feet of Charley's favorite
stool :-)) in both camps to tolerate these ambiguities -- indeed we may
seem to other Christians to INSIST on ambiguities.  For us, it is a matter
of how much tension we can individually bear.  But Rome is a prisoner of
its own past words of anathema.

That is the connection with my opening remarks.  Those who take Rome to be
the Antichrist, and equally Rome itself, fear for their own salvation or
else are convinced there is no salvation except on terms largely of their
own manufacture (which is not meant as a denial of a ground of truth in
both instances).  But as a result, they have trouble with the statement in
Mark 9:38-40:

	"John said to him, 'Teacher, we saw a man casting out devils in
	your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.'
	But Jesus said, 'Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty
	work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me.  For
	he that is not against us is for us."

And I am tempted to add a somewhat artificial reading of verse 42:

	"'Whoever causes  one of these little ones who believe in me to
	sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hund
	round his nck and he were thrown into the sea.'"

such that the manufacture of doctrine and explicit or implicit anathemas
on that basis counts as "causing <believers> to sin" in effect by creating
sins that are no sin in the eyes of God.  But of course, my saying that is
a statement of the way *I* read the truth living in me, and as subject to
my own peculiar misinterpretations as any I object to.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon			O stand, stand at the window
...!cucard!dasys1!mls			     As the tears scald and start;
					You shall love your crooked neighbor
   			 		     With your crooked heart.

hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (09/20/89)

In response to mls@dasys1.UUCP (Michael Siemon):

I think intercommunion between Episcopal and Reformed should be
possible.  I do understand that problem with Catholics.  But aside
from them, I think the key is to understand that the sacrament is not
a creation of our organization.  Christ instituted it.  And he gave us
no theory of his mode of presence.  So in my view the requirements for
a valid communion are: (1) that they follow certain formal requirement
that follow directly from Christ's command, specifically that they use
bread and wine (*), and probably also use some version of the words of
Institution; (2) that the liturgy and liturgical theology should make
it clear that they intend to be doing the action that Christ
commanded.  This is exactly parallel to the requirements for a valid
baptism: (1) baptism in water using the formula "I baptize you in the
name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit", (2) that they
intend to be carrying out Christian baptism.  I understand that you
have a somewhat different view of how Christ is present in Communion
than the Baptists do.  But as long as a Baptist Communion service
meets the requirements for carrying out Christ's commands, it seems
that Christ would be present in it in the same way as in yours.

In your discussion you clearly have a problem accepting "low church"
communions as equivalent to yours.  I can see two possible reasons:
problems with the status of the ordination of their pastors, and
differences in liturgy and liturgical theology.  I have just argued
that the second should not be an issue.  However the status of
ordination is harder to deal with.  It's always hard for me to know to
what extent Episcopaleans are really Protestants, and to what extent
they share Catholic positions.  (This confusion often seems to extend
to the Episcopaleans themselves.)  Clearly if you believe that
Communion must be carried out by someone who has been ordained by a
bishop who is in the apostolic succession, then you cannot accept a
"low church" Communion as fully valid.  But other than that, I see no
reason for problems.  

So far I've mentioned Baptists, since clearly their idea of Communion
is different than yours in significant ways.  However you seem to
suggest that it is the same for Reformed.  I think not.  I note that
the description of Communion in both your Catechism and Articles of
Religion are consistent with the Reformed concept.

Your comments seem to imply that the Reformed concept is that of a
simple memorial.  In fact Calvin, and after him such Reformed
confessions as the Heidelberg Catechism, the Second Helvetic
Confession, the Westminster Confession, and the Scots Confession teach
what I believe is best characterized as "spiritual presence".  This is
the idea that Christians really do receive Christ's body and blood in
communion, but that our contact with his body and blood is through
mediation of the Holy Spirit, not through physical contact with the
elements.  "There is more than one kind of eating.  There is corporeal
eating whereby food is taken into the mouth, is chewed with the teeth,
and swallowed into the stomach. ...  There is also a spiritual eating
of Christ's body; not such that we think that thereby the food itself
is to be changed into spirit, but whereby the body and blood of the
Lord, while remaining in their own essence and property, are
spiritually communicated to us, certainly not in a corporeal but in a
spiritual way, by the Holy Spirit, who applies and bestows upon us
these things which have been prepared for us by the sacrifice of the
Lord's body and blood for us, ... and he causes us to receive him by
true faith to this end that he may become for us such spiritual food
and drinek, that is, our life.... For even as bodily food and drink
not only refresh and strengthen our bodies, but also keep them alive,
so the flesh of Christ delivered for us, and his blood shed for us,
not only refresh and strengthen out souls, but also preserve them
alive, not in so far as they are corporeallly eaten and drunken, but
in so far as they are communicated unto us spiritually by the Spirit
of God..."  (Second Helvetic Confession)

We do not believe that the bread and wine of themselves create grace.
However under those signs, Christ is really offering himself to us in
the sacrament.  And of course his presence does bring God's grace.
"We grant that this is neither given to us merely at the time nor by
the power and virtue of the sacrament alone, but we affirm that the
faithful, in the right use of the Lord's Table, have such union with
Christ Jesus as the natural man cannot apprehend.  Further we affirm
that although the faithful, hindered by negligence and human weakness,
do not profit as much as they ought in the actual moment of the
Supper, yet afterwards it shall bring forth fruit, being living seed
sown in good ground; for the Holy Spirit, who can never be separated
from the right institution of the Lord Jesus, will not deprive the
faithful of the fruit of that faithful action. ...  Therefore, if
anyone slanders us by saying that we affirm or believe the sacraments
to be symbols and nothing more they are libelous and speak against the
plain facts." (The Scots Confession (1560))

I have no easy way to resolve problems resulting from the Apostolic
Succession.  I'm sure you know my view: Choice of church polity is not
prescribed in the Bible, so it is left to the good sense of the
church.  There is no command from Christ saying that Communion may
only be celebrated by those in the apostolic succession.  However
obviously Catholics have a different view.

I am willing to acknowledge that healing the divisions of the Church
is an obligation incumbent on all parties.  However it's unrealistic
to imply that the situation is completely symmetrical.  Protestants
have no problems in theory with accepting the Catholic Church as fully
equal to our own.  We may have problems in practice, and I would be
the last to suggest that we are without fault.  But Catholics have a
problem in dealing with the division that we do not have.  They have a
concept of church authority that makes it hard for them to treat
Protestant churches as equal in -- what should we say --
authorization? -- to the Catholic Church.  

The basic problem is that we have different ideas of what it would
mean to heal the division.  My model is that it would mean that all
churches acknowledge each other as equally part of Christ's body, and
they are all in communion with each other.  Protestants cannot
identify Christ's body with a specific human organization.  I have the
feeling that the Catholic model ultimately cannot envision there being
several independent churches. and so their model is that a complete
healing would mean that we all merge back into one.  Perhaps I'm
misreading things, but this seems to be the gist of what most of the
postings say.  How can you heal a break when each side's idea of what
it would mean to heal it involves the other side abandoning their
basic identity?  I'm not sure this is a situation where compromise is
possible.

It seems to me that the Protestant position has a certain tactical
advantage.  In some sense the status quo is with us.  There are many
churches.  The pressure on Catholics to see other churches as part of
Christ's body is very clear.  Yet the further they go in seeing
Protestant churches as authorized agents of Christ, the closer they
are to accepting the Protestant model.  On our side, Protestants can
fit Catholics into our framework with no problem.  Of course tactical
advantage does not necessarily mean truth...

-----
(*) I use the term wine broadly, to include unfermented grape juice.
There are enough people who have problems with use of alcohol that it
makes sense to be slightly, er, flexible in our definition of wine so
as to avoid putting a stumbling block in the way of these brothers and
sisters.

mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu (Charley Wingate) (09/23/89)

I think that OFM gets off to a good start in his reply, but that things
eventually go ary.  The comment about institution, I agree, is at the root of
this.  I think one problem we have with the RC church over this is that
their position on authority has the effect of appearing to negate this; if
the eucharist is what it is, then what The Church says it is would seem to be
of limited relevance.  Turning it into a point of church discipline more or
less guarantees protestantism.  ANyway, that grumping out the way, I would
note in passing that the episcopal liturgies tend to treat breaking of the
bread as an essential part of the act.

The whole meaning of ordination is somewhat controversial in the episcopal
church.  On one fringe we have dogmatic belief in apostolic succession (the
so-called pipeline theory of grace).  In the other direction we have Urban
Holmes saying that the orders are not of dominical ordinance and are simply
preferable above all other systems.  Holmes certainly has a point, because
the gospels simply do not say what the proper minister for the eucharist
is-- and as protestants, anglicans surely must bow to scripture to at least
this degree.

This "spiritual presence" model is unclear to me to the extent that the
model seems to be saying, by implication, that the role of the elements is
symbolic.  This is a consequence of the negative comment about "physical
contact with the elements"; clearly there is *some* symbolic value
invoolved, and the comment seems to forbid any other effective role.
Anglicans are a bit messy about this, but "real presence" says that the
"physical contact" does mean something more than just physical eating or a
symbol of some other divine activity.  The confession cited may flatly deny
a "merely" symbolic role, but with the denial of real presence, I don't see
what other role is possible.

It is interesting to me that the confession seems to imply that a view of
the elements as purely symbolic represents a trap.  Symbolism as a theory is
actually rather commonly held.  It also seems to commonly lead to various
sorts of aberrations; the elements tend to metamorphosize into almost any
potable and any bakery item (for some reason, the cases I have heard of all
involved Coca-Cola and cookies), and the whole thing often turns into a sort
genericized god-celebration.  (BTW, ancient practice already has a solution
to the alcohol problem: communion need only be taken in one kind.)  If we
are going to have communion among the theories, we at least have some
obligation to be pretty pure about the elements.  For us hyper-sacramental
types, following the instructions is of some pretty high importance; I have
trouble seeing what the problem might be in humoring us on this point.

This may seem to be a triviality, but a lot of current communion practice
can be traced to this sort of gripe.  Personally, I find wafers to be a
pretty poor symbol-- not bread at all, and not broken either.  If we are
going to have intercommunion with the RC church, however, we would appear to
need unleavened bread, and the fragmentation bomb effect of matzoh (or most
bread, for that matter) is one of the reasons we have wafers in the first
place.  On the other hand, are not cookies a bit too casual?  Here we have
two contradictory trends: by the "symbolists", to take "mere" symbolism as
licence, and by their opposite numbers, to treat the elements downright
superstitiously.

The point of all this is that the differences in the theories have effects
beyond simple validity; they affect one's whole attitude towards the
sacrament.

C. Wingate           + "Our God, to whom we turn when weary with illusion,
                     + whose stars serenely burn above this earth's confusion,
mangoe@mimsy.umd.edu + thine is the mightly plan, the steadfast order sure
mimsy!mangoe         + in which the world began, endures, and shall endure."

[The Reformed confessions do not deny the real presence.  They say
that Christ's body is really present for us in communion.  They simply
claim that it is not localized in the elements.  The significance of
the elements is to provide a visible representation of something that
is happening invisibly.  Of course the symbols have to be appropriate.
How can they make the reality of the sacrament visible if they are not
appropriate symbols?  --clh]